Literature DB >> 1732936

Breast masses. Mammographic and sonographic evaluation.

S A Feig1.   

Abstract

Asymmetric breast tissue can nearly always be distinguished from a true mass by means of mammographic evaluation. Stellate masses from early invasive breast cancer are often extremely subtle so that optimal technique and meticulous interpretation are essential. Benign stellate masses such as post-biopsy scarring and fat necrosis frequently have a characteristic appearance. A radial scar is usually indistinguishable from malignancy on the mammogram. Nearly all circumscribed masses are benign and are usually cysts, fibroadenomas, or intramammary lymph nodes. A few circumscribed masses represent in situ or invasive carcinoma or both. Characteristics that may allow a definitively benign diagnosis for a circumscribed mass include the presence of fat and certain calcification patterns on the mammogram and features of a simple cyst on the sonogram. Management decisions for other circumscribed masses will depend on characteristics such as shape, margins, calcification, multiplicity, size, stability, and sonographic features as well as patient age and risk factors. Most nonspecific circumscribed masses should be followed rather than biopsied as they are commonly present on mammograms and have a change of malignancy of less than 5%. Even when biopsied on the basis of interval change, most small circumscribed cancers will not have metastasized to the regional nodes. For palpable breast masses, selection of mammography or ultrasonography as the primary imaging modality will depend on patient's age and risk factors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1732936

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am        ISSN: 0033-8389            Impact factor:   2.303


  10 in total

1.  Computing mammographic density from a multiple regression model constructed with image-acquisition parameters from a full-field digital mammographic unit.

Authors:  Lee-Jane W Lu; Thomas K Nishino; Tuenchit Khamapirad; James J Grady; Morton H Leonard; Donald G Brunder
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2007-07-30       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  A breast density index for digital mammograms based on radiologists' ranking.

Authors:  J M Boone; K K Lindfors; C S Beatty; J A Seibert
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Associative stigma in family members of psychotic patients in Flanders: An exploratory study.

Authors:  Kirsten Catthoor; Didier Schrijvers; Joost Hutsebaut; Dineke Feenstra; Philippe Persoons; Marc De Hert; Jozef Peuskens; Bernard Sabbe
Journal:  World J Psychiatry       Date:  2015-03-22

Review 4.  Breast image registration techniques: a survey.

Authors:  Yujun Guo; Radhika Sivaramakrishna; Cheng-Chang Lu; Jasjit S Suri; Swamy Laxminarayan
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.602

5.  Tumor size estimation of the breast cancer molecular subtypes using imaging techniques.

Authors:  Gulten Sezgın; Melda Apaydın; Demet Etıt; Murat Kemal Atahan
Journal:  Med Pharm Rep       Date:  2020-07-22

6.  Estimation of tumor size in breast cancer comparing clinical examination, mammography, ultrasound and MRI-correlation with the pathological analysis of the surgical specimen.

Authors:  Tomas Cortadellas; Paula Argacha; Juan Acosta; Jordi Rabasa; Ricardo Peiró; Margarita Gomez; Laura Rodellar; Sandra Gomez; Alejandra Navarro-Golobart; Sonia Sanchez-Mendez; Milagros Martinez-Medina; Mireia Botey; Carlos Muñoz-Ramos; Manel Xiberta
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2017-08

Review 7.  State of the art of current modalities for the diagnosis of breast lesions.

Authors:  Cosimo Di Maggio
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2004-04-15       Impact factor: 9.236

8.  Computerized detection of masses in digital mammograms: investigation of feature-analysis techniques.

Authors:  F F Yin; M L Giger; K Doi; C J Vyborny; R A Schmidt
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 4.056

9.  Accurate Estimation of Breast Tumor Size: A Comparison Between Ultrasonography, Mammography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Associated Contributing Factors.

Authors:  Shilan Azhdeh; Ahmad Kaviani; Nahid Sadighi; Maryam Rahmani
Journal:  Eur J Breast Health       Date:  2020-12-24

10.  Differences between the clinical and histopathological tumor stages in breast cancer diagnosed using vacuum-assisted breast biopsy.

Authors:  Hai-Lin Park; Ji-Sun Hong; So Yong Chang; Jung Yin Huh; Ji Eun Shin; Ji-Young Kim; Jeong Yun Shim; Songmi Noh
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2015-02-09       Impact factor: 2.967

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.